SHOULD THE IRISH HAVE A POSITION ON SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE?

Posted By: February 23, 2014

The author finds it odd that Irish nationalists/republicans have stayed silent on “ Scotland’s quest for independence.”

SILENCE ON INDEPENDENCE DEBATE SPEAKS VOLUMES

Patrick Murphy. Irish News (Belfast) Saturday, February 22, 2014. FOR a country which spent centuries seeking foreign aid in its struggle for freedom, Ireland is maintaining an embarrassing silence on Scotland’s quest for independence. It is not only official Ireland which is oddly mute. Irish nationalism in general has steered clear of September’s referendum and only unionists have taken sides in the debate. (As usual they have taken the wrong side but that’s unionism for you.) So, you say, what do you want us to do for Scotland – send over the Free State Army? (Oh dear, you are in a cynical mood today – and you should know that what was once the Free State Army is now Oglaigh na hEireann. No, not that Oglaigh na hEireann, a different one.) No, armed intervention is hardly necessary. From an Irish perspective, we might devise three arguments for Scottish independence. The Scots could ask the English: “What gives you the right to come up here, ravage our country, kill our people, clear the Highlands, steal our oil, send us abroad to kill people on your behalf, deprive us of welfare and then tell us how lucky we are to be governed by you?” (You are right – this column is not planning a future career in the diplomatic service.) Alternatively, we might argue on the basis of annoying those whom we do not like. (This explains much Irish social behaviour.) We could advocate a pro-independence vote to get up David Cameron’s nose which, you might suggest, is not much of a political philosophy. But this is not about philosophy. It is about principle, which in this case is about not siding with those who were members of Oxford University’s Bullingdon Club. They have a reputation for thrashing restaurants, holding champagne breakfasts and generally flaunting their wealth in navy

blue tailcoats, brass monogrammed buttons and mustard waistcoats. Former members include Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnston – all staunch anti-independence campaigners. Would you want to be on their side in any argument?

We could advocate a pro-independence vote to get up David Cameron’s nose which, you might suggest, is not much of a political philosophy.But this is not about philosophy. It is about principle, which in this case is about not siding with those who were members of Oxford University’s Bullingdon Club. They have a reputation for thrashing restaurants, holding champagne breakfasts and generally flaunting their wealth in navy blue tailcoats, brass monogrammed buttons and mustard waistcoats.Former members include Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnston – all staunch anti-independence campaigners. Would you want to be on their side in any argument?The third argument is, understandably, based on the territorial autonomy of Scotland’s political and cultural identities. Oddly (or maybe not) Scottish nationalists use none of these arguments. Instead they promote the economic advantages of independence, while England’s answer is to bully them with silly arguments about how a new Scotland could not align with sterling.

An independent Ireland did it for 57 years, before opting for the Euro.

An example of the case for independence is developing the principle that for Scottish students, university education is free. English students pay up to £9,000 annually.

Thus the pro-independence argument is not based on nationalism as an end product. It argues for nationalism as a mechanism for building a fairer society in Scotland, compared to David Cameron’s starvation plans for Britain’s poor. Unionists argue that Scottish independence would dismantle the UK. Scottish nationalists could reply that Cameron’s social and economic policies have already dismantled UK society. (While the Irish opted for pure political and cultural nationalism, uncontaminated by social and economic policy, Scotland’s uniqueness, particularly in urban areas, was traditionally expressed in left wing politics.)

Sinn Fein says it has stayed out of the debate. The SDLP does not appear to have got as far as saying nothing. (In fairness, you should never rush into saying nothing.) Perhaps both parties might explain their silence.

There is merit in suggesting that the referendum is a matter for the Scottish people but a general statement that all nations have the right to self-determination would hardly be intrusive.

Some might argue that Irish involvement would add a sectarian element to the debate or, particularly in the case of Sinn Fein, that involvement might galvanise the opposition.

However, if I may borrow some of your cynicism (just enough for this paragraph) perhaps there is another explanation.

By advocating the cause of Scottish nationalism, their current garbled version of Irish nationalism might be exposed.

For example, do Irish nationalists believe that the Scots are two separate nations? If they are, there is a poor case for independence. If they are not, why apply the two nations theory only to Ireland?

Their confusion is illustrated by one SDLP local government candidate, who is presumably a political nationalist but who has proclaimed himself to be an economic unionist.

That combination sounds not so much like an election manifesto, more a medical condition. Meanwhile, Sinn Fein refers to “exports” from here to the south of Ireland.

So perhaps both parties are right not to become involved, even if it suggests to the world that we are much better at seeking help than we are at offering it.

Buy The Books

Mac Ireland

Read Fr. Sean McManus’ inspiring story ...

His life-long struggle for justice in Northern Ireleand, now combines with The Holy Land ...

Order your copies of "My American struggle for Justice in Northern Ireland... and the Holy Land —" as well as "Mac Ireland series: Books One, 2 and 3."